We are already working on adding this syntax to archetype bindings. Seems to really fit the purpose.
2015-04-02 12:58 GMT+02:00 Mikael Nystr?m <mikael.nystrom at liu.se>: > Hi, > > > > When it comes to terminology queries and SNOMED CT I would like to promote > IHTSDO:s ?SNOMED CT Expression Constraint Syntax Specification for > Terminology Binding?. The specifications is currently in the ?Public draft? > status and can be accessed from http://ihtsdo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/doc/ > . > > > > Regards > > Mikael > > > > > > Fr?n: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] > F?r Koray Atalag > Skickat: den 2 april 2015 11:52 > Till: For openEHR clinical discussions > ?mne: RE: one-to-many term bindings in archetypes > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I?d also suggest one and only one term_binding to a particular (version of) > terminology for each archetype node. I think this is essential to get the > semantics right in the world of Semantic Web / Linked Open Data worlds as > well. I think we?ll also see it is going to be used to link to unique > identifiers (as in identifiers.org) to non-ambiguously define it which can > then be used to link to other resources) ? so I think essentially a URI > could also do it. Something to consider in Specifications program. Another > aspect to think about is a terminology query ? it is not at the top of my > head at the moment but I remember reading current specs there is room for > improvement in terminology section. So the question is can we define the > semantics of a node in real world not just by referring to a single term but > a terminology query. One example comes to my mind from a current practical > example I?m working on is to limit the problem/diagnosis to a list of > conditions called Acute Coronary Syndrome, there are a few individual > diagnoses in it. In SNOMED because of relationships it is possible to find a > single concept but for other terminologies this may not be possible. We may > also want to refer to a custom set of SNOMED CT concepts as well. Thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > > > -koray > > > > From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] > On Behalf Of pablo pazos > Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:06 p.m. > To: openEHR Clinical > Subject: RE: one-to-many term bindings in archetypes > > > > Hi Daniel & Thomas, thanks for the input! > > > > I think it makes sense to have just one term_binding per terminology, and if > more than one concept on the terminology represents the same concept, the > terminology has some problems and the archetype editor/reviewer has to make > a decision on which code to use. > > > > In the other hand, for one nodeID, different term_bindings can be created > for different terminologies, that's supported by ADL1.4 I think. > > > > From the last example by Daniel, I don't think it is correct to link > abstract Information Model classes to concepts using term bindings, since, > as you remark, those are abstract classes that are very generic, so they > match several concepts. But, when those classes are on an archetype, as in > my example, they represent very specific concepts (the recording of the BP > in my example). > > > > For me is clear that the desicion is on the archetype editor and he/she > should choose just one concept code that matches that specific archetype > node. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > -- > Kind regards, > Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > http://cabolabs.com > >> Subject: Re: one-to-many term bindings in archetypes >> From: daniel.karlsson at liu.se >> To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:54:09 +0200 >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> there are multiple, equally correct/useful/etc. perspectives on reality >> and that is not a situation SNOMED CT or any other terminology/ontology >> can ever resolve. No terminology will ever be perfect since 1. "perfect" >> is not unequivocally defined, 2. human effort is error prone, 3. >> computational complexity limits use of technology. Imperfections are >> probably easier to agree on ;) and SNOMED CT has its fair share of >> those. However, quality programs have continuously improved the >> situation. >> >> Then, within those boundaries terminologies can be used, through term >> binding [ADL2, 8.11.4], to add external references to the meaning of >> archetype nodes. If the meaning of the archetype node is not clear, >> neither will any term binding be. Term binding is not only useful when >> comparing data to other IM frameworks, e.g. Act.code is often used >> corresponding to an ELEMENT term binding, but also to maintain a larger >> set of archetypes by allowing e.g. terminology-based queries. >> >> In the example presented, there are at least three alternatives for term >> binding OBSERVATION archetypes to SNOMED CT: a procedure, a finding, and >> an observable entity. We would just have to agree on a set of patterns >> for how (and if) to bind to ENTRY-ies, ELEMENTs etc. based on our >> understanding of the meaning of the archetype nodes. A very tentative >> such pattern for OBSERVATIONs could be: >> OBSERVATION --> term-bind to <<386053000 | evaluation procedure >> (procedure) | >> ELEMENT --> term-bind to <<363787002 | observable entity (observable >> entity) | >> >> /Daniel >> >> On s?n, 2015-03-29 at 22:10 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: >> > Hi Pablo, >> > >> > I presented to IHTSDO in about 2010 (PDF here) on the problem of >> > multiple possible bindings in SNOMED CT for a given term. The problem >> > is mainly that SNOMED has problems, not that it has multiple codes >> > that we should legitimately bind to. There are overlapping concepts, >> > duplicate concepts, wrong concepts, and right concepts. Of the 'right' >> > ones, only some or none may correspond to the concept for a given node >> > in the archetype. >> > >> > SNOMED CT is getting better, and someone like Daniel Karlsson would be >> > able to give a better idea of how 'clean' it is today. >> > >> > You'll see some examples (BP and others) about 1/3 of the way in. >> > >> > - thomas >> > >> > On 29/03/2015 18:15, pablo pazos wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > >> > > I was reviewing some archetypes and on the "term_bindings" section >> > > there are always one-to-one bindings. >> > > I think we can have many codes in one terminology corresponding to >> > > one at code in the archetype, e.g. in the blood pressure archetype >> > > we have: >> > > >> > > >> > > term_bindings = < >> > > >> > > ["SNOMED-CT"] = < >> > > >> > > items = < >> > > >> > > ["at0000"] = <[SNOMED-CT(2003)::163020007]> -- >> > > Blood Pressure >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Looking for the 163020007 code in SNOMED, that corresponds to "On >> > > Examination Blood Pressure Reading" >> > > >> > > http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SNOMEDCT?p=classes&conceptid=163020007 >> > > >> > > >> > > There is another concept "Blood pressure >> > > taking" >> > > http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SNOMEDCT?p=classes&conceptid=46973005 >> > > that IMO also can correspond to the concept in the archetype. >> > > >> > > >> > > Depending no context, some may use the first code, others may use >> > > the second. >> > > >> > > >> > > Is this approach right? Should we support one-to-many term bindings >> > > in archetypes? >> > > >> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > openEHR-clinical mailing list >> > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> > >> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
